This era of ship design is by far my favorite but it is also the funniest. It can pretty much be characterized by every country asking: “How many guns and how much armor can we slap on this floating hulk before it tips over or sinks?”
HMS Agincourt (built for the Turks before they came into WWI on the side of the Kaiser): 7 double 12" turrets. "A Turret for each day of the week," and named in honor of each of the days... Sunday, Monday, etc...
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 I have to point out that she was not built for the turks, she was offered to them while she was already under construction, she was originally brazilian.
@@fernandomarques5166 And was then continued to be built for the Turks ;). Also, it was not that Turkey joined the Kaiser and therefore GB kept Agincourt but exactly the other way around: GB seized Agincourt, and Turkey was pissed off by this. Plus the Germans, uhm, kindly offered them Goeben, making Turkey join war against the Allies.
@@535phobos Well why they were really pissed off, is Britain seized Agincourt and Erin and refused to give them their money back. Goeben and Breslau were crewed by Germans in the Black Sea and a railway line was also promised as part of the inducement by Germany to side against England. I think I read that in the book Jutland by Captain Donald Macintyre RN. Macintyre's description for the reasons seem more clear than the nebulous crap about the place these days, though it is possible Macintyre was wrong. Macintyre, I believe, said the two German ships and the railway line were quickly thought up at the time the British refused to give Turkey her money back. The Germans pounced so to speak and came up with a something worth nothing for free scheme to get Turkey to ally with Germany ie a ships crewed by Germans and a railway that was never going to be built. Germany also later tried this tactic with Mexico with the Zimmerman Telegrams which was a ridiculous and hilarious proposal but Mexico was having none of it because Germany had no capacity to make good on the inducement. Of course it backfired when the US got wind of the Telegram. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (particularly considering the zeitgeist of Lusitania in the US) and her ignoring the Sussex Pledge because the US was supplying ordnance and finance to the allies breaking what Germany considered neutrality, ultimately brought America into WW1. The Zimmerman Telegram was BS and Mexico knew it but it enraged the US. Germany was her own worst enemy. The Wikipedia entry about the reasons the Ottoman Empire entered WW1 are appalling. All it says is, with some other meaningless crap is, "The reasons for the Ottoman action were not immediately clear."
You can tell Ryan really enjoys his work. In tonight's video he is very animated and excited to be at U.S.S. Texas BB-35. Great to see the younger generations interest in battleships and there preservation.
One thing worth mentioning, in early American triple turret design, was that due to blast effect of the close proximity of the barrels, accuracy was affected. Twin turrets were more accurate. Americans started to stagger fire the middle gun in order to correct that. You will notice the later American turrets were wider (North Carolina class onward), this help mitigate this effect and American Battleships became much more accurate.
Or, just do what the 90s Iowa crews did and fire the guns independently in quick succession. Center gun firs, left gun second, third gun last, all within a quarter to half second of each other. Edit: proofreading
@@edgardox.feliciano3127 Staggering fire had been done in WW2, just not all guns were staggered. As mentioned, they would fire the two outer guns first with a split second delay which then fire the middle gun. The distance between the outboard guns especially on WW2 era 3-gun turrets were quite sufficient. it was always the middle gun that was the problem, so delaying just that worked perfectly fine. Also firing the middle gun last is the most ideal because the blast pressure from the two outboard gun would more or less cancel each other. Where as firing the middle gun would exert pressure onto the outboard guns. So its better to fire outboard before firing middle.
@hognoxious I've always wished that Battleships would always be in Service. Although, I know it's over for them, but can we at least have the 8" rapid-fire, triple-gun turrets, of the U.S.S. Salem back?!
Also the 15-in 42 caliber was arguably one of the best guns of the period so it's still competitive with the latest and greatest in all but range because it was just that good of a gun.
@@trentbyington5957 we're talking about British guns not American. The 15-in 42 could not hold a candle to the 16-in 50 but then again the 16-in 50 was arguably the second best battleship gun ever deployed. As far as what I can tell about the British 16 inch gun it would have been better than the 15 in 42 but not better by enough to where it's like if we don't have it then these ships just aren't worth putting into service but it would have been a noticeable increase in firepower
@@trentbyington5957As Ryan has observed on occasion, accuracy at extreme ranges was problematic because the target could compound the issue during the flight of the shells. Example, the USS Edsel evading gunfire before being slowed by carrier aircraft. The record of the longest hit on another battleship belongs to the 15" 42.
I was picturing turrets roaming the countryside, and large ranches where they're rounded up and put onto battleships. Did you see Cher's video clip of a Battleship rodeo?
@@nikolatasev4948 And right next to it some old farmer set in his ways growing massive Armstrong cannons. These were 103 ton cannon capable of firing a 1 ton projectile at 472m/s. 1877 technology with black powder. Muttering 6km range was enough back in my day. Amazing how much gun technology progressed over such a relatively short history of massive naval guns.
To me the triple turrets on the US ships was a good trade-off between weight savings and redundancy in-case of battle damage. I thought the French went a interesting route with their Quad turrets by putting the steel divider down the middle to give increased survivability.
The barrels on the Jean Bart and Richelieu were where also twin linked , sharing a common trunion. Two barrels would elevate and depress together. This was an effective solution to the mechanical problems arising from a more complex design that would have allowed each barrel to elevate and depress independently.
THE BIGGEST FRENCH BATTLEWAGON(S) ENDED UP AT ABOUT 47,000 TONS WITH 15" GUNS....THEY SEEMED TO REALLY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON TREATY OF 22..WHEN ANTICIPATING THE ITALIANS NEXT SHIP(S). .WHEN I WAS A KID ( 8 YOA), THEY BROUGHT BB 60 HOME WHERE IT STILL RESIDES ON THE NORTH END OF MOBILE BAY....FINALLY GOT TO TOUR IT IN NOV 2006........I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES.....LIGHTER 40 K TRUE WEIGHT, SHORTER , 680 FT LONG WITH 16/45 MK VII GUNS (ABOUT 6 FEET SHORTER THAT THE IOWA CLASS) WERE VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN VELOCITY..... LIKE SAY....2750 LB SHELLS AT 2300 2700 FEET PER SECOND WITH A RIDICULOUS TERMINAL VELOCITY....OH WELL GUNTER, SUJI ADOLPH UND HIROHITO.......YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGGEST SHELL ON THE 7 SEAS EXCEPT FOR THE GIANT 70,000 TON IJN BEHEMOTHS; STILL MORE FULL OF 1920S TECHNOLOGY OR WERE BEFORE THEY WERE "BISMARKED", "GNIESENAUED", "TIRPITZED", OR "SCHARNHORSTED"....( 35 K TONS WITH 11 INCH GUNS IT NOT A POCKET BATTLESHIP..MISTUH CHURCHILL"!!...IT'S A VERY HEAVY CRUISER ON A TOO HEAVY TOO SLOW PLATFORM.....WE HAD CRUISERS THAT FAR OUTCLASSED THESE "POCKET BATTLESHIPS" WITH SPECIAL 12" GUNS THROWING 1200 LB SHELLS DISPLACING 33OOO TONS MAKING 37 KNOTS (40 MPH) ON WATER SAME LENGTH AS THE IOWAS AND 73 FEET ABEAM. THE IOWA'S 16" 56 FOOT BBL AND THE 16' 62 FOOT BARREL OF OF THE IOWAS HIT ASK THE KIROSHIMA, KONGO AND EVEN THE JEAN BART, THE MISGUIDED FRENCH BATTLEWAGON SPANKED ON OUT IN NORTH AFRICA IN 1942..ABOUT HITTING POWER, SECTIONAL DENSITY FLIGHT TIME OF SHELLS AND ....OPPONENTS OF MK VI AND MK VII NAVAL GUNS PROGRAM DIDN'T HANG AROUND VERY LONG.....A FRIEND WAS ON THE ARKANSAS (OLDEST SHIP IN THE USN AFTER THE UTAH WAS SUNK AT PEARL DEC 1941) HE SHOT JAP PLANES DOWN IN SEA BATTLES LIKE MAYBE LEHTI GULF OR PHIILPINE SEA....AN 18 YEAR KID PLUCKED UP FROM THE DUSTY ROADS OF SHELBY COUNTY ALABAMA PLACED INTO THE JAP ZEROS AND OSCARS SHOOTING GALLERY AND DUELING WITH THE GUNS OF POINT DU HOC THAT RAINED SO MUCH DEATH AT NORMADIE TIL BRAVE ALLIED DESTROYERS AND EQUALLY LOW DRAFT CRUISERS PULLED IN PARALLEL TO THE BEACH AND SWEPT THOSE STWGWR 34S AND 42 AND THOSE 88S OFF LIKE A BROOM WITH 4 TO 10 INCH GUNS....WE WON'T SEE THAT LEVEL OF NATIONAL COOPERATION AND UNITY AGAIN...AND WE ALL MISSED IT
@@funkycat9629 THE BIGGEST FRENCH BATTLEWAGON(S) ENDED UP AT ABOUT 47,000 TONS WITH 15" GUNS....THEY SEEMED TO REALLY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON TREATY OF 22..WHEN ANTICIPATING THE ITALIANS NEXT SHIP(S). .WHEN I WAS A KID ( 8 YOA), THEY BROUGHT BB 60 HOME WHERE IT STILL RESIDES ON THE NORTH END OF MOBILE BAY....FINALLY GOT TO TOUR IT IN NOV 2006........I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES.....LIGHTER 40 K TRUE WEIGHT, SHORTER , 680 FT LONG WITH 16/45 MK VII GUNS (ABOUT 6 FEET SHORTER THAT THE IOWA CLASS) WERE VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN VELOCITY..... LIKE SAY....2750 LB SHELLS AT 2300 2700 FEET PER SECOND WITH A RIDICULOUS TERMINAL VELOCITY....OH WELL GUNTER, SUJI ADOLPH UND HIROHITO.......YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGGEST SHELL ON THE 7 SEAS EXCEPT FOR THE GIANT 70,000 TON IJN BEHEMOTHS; STILL MORE FULL OF 1920S TECHNOLOGY OR WERE BEFORE THEY WERE "BISMARKED", "GNIESENAUED", "TIRPITZED", OR "SCHARNHORSTED"....( 35 K TONS WITH 11 INCH GUNS IT NOT A POCKET BATTLESHIP..MISTUH CHURCHILL"!!...IT'S A VERY HEAVY CRUISER ON A TOO HEAVY TOO SLOW PLATFORM.....WE HAD CRUISERS THAT FAR OUTCLASSED THESE "POCKET BATTLESHIPS" WITH SPECIAL 12" GUNS THROWING 1200 LB SHELLS DISPLACING 33OOO TONS MAKING 37 KNOTS (40 MPH) ON WATER SAME LENGTH AS THE IOWAS AND 73 FEET ABEAM. THE IOWA'S 16" 56 FOOT BBL AND THE 16' 62 FOOT BARREL OF OF THE IOWAS HIT ASK THE KIROSHIMA, KONGO AND EVEN THE JEAN BART, THE MISGUIDED FRENCH BATTLEWAGON SPANKED ON OUT IN NORTH AFRICA IN 1942..ABOUT HITTING POWER, SECTIONAL DENSITY FLIGHT TIME OF SHELLS AND ....OPPONENTS OF MK VI AND MK VII NAVAL GUNS PROGRAM DIDN'T HANG AROUND VERY LONG.....A FRIEND WAS ON THE ARKANSAS (OLDEST SHIP IN THE USN AFTER THE UTAH WAS SUNK AT PEARL DEC 1941) HE SHOT JAP PLANES DOWN IN SEA BATTLES LIKE MAYBE LEHTI GULF OR PHIILPINE SEA....AN 18 YEAR KID PLUCKED UP FROM THE DUSTY ROADS OF SHELBY COUNTY ALABAMA PLACED INTO THE JAP ZEROS AND OSCARS SHOOTING GALLERY AND DUELING WITH THE GUNS OF POINT DU HOC THAT RAINED SO MUCH DEATH AT NORMADIE TIL BRAVE ALLIED DESTROYERS AND EQUALLY LOW DRAFT CRUISERS PULLED IN PARALLEL TO THE BEACH AND SWEPT THOSE STWGWR 34S AND 42 AND THOSE 88S OFF LIKE A BROOM WITH 4 TO 10 INCH GUNS....WE WON'T SEE THAT LEVEL OF NATIONAL COOPERATION AND UNITY AGAIN...AND WE ALL MISSED IT
Imagining the 12 16 inch guns that would have been the Montana's is surely impressive to say the least. Great video, visiting the Texas is definitely on the bucket list.
@@AsbestosMuffins I don't know about that as the US believed that their 16in "super heavy" had reached an acceptable plateau and how much heavier 18in guns would have been, especially 12 of them. Montana still needed acceptable speed in the high 20's. To give her the same protection she would have had, 27kts, AND 12 18in guns you're looking at possibly an incredably exspensive 100,000 ton battleship. Not saying it would be impossible but 12 16in guns would have still got the job done with no need to build a new, bigger gun.
I also love the 3-gun American standard battleship design. It's probably because I had so much exposure to those as a kid before I really learned much about other nations' battleships, but 2-gun turrets just... feel like something is missing.
Yeah, they're missing a gun! 🤣 (I had to do point out the obvious before someone made a snide comment, a two gun turret is one gun short of a three gun turret)
Agreed. The only two gun battleship I like is his majesty the Bismarck and his sister the Tripitz if that’s how you spell it. I think those were the class before the H44 concept came around
In my opinion,the Iowa class was the epitome of the battleship. A good balance of speed and heavy armor,plus the 16 inch.50 cal. (Or was it .58 cal?) was about as big a shell as was efficient. The 18's on the Yamato were heavier but didn't really have much more range and wore out barrels faster than the 16's. This is all info dredged up from my slightly stroke damaged memory from books I read 30+ years ago. So if I misremembered,please don't rip my ass! Love this channel!
It's surprising to learn Yamato and Musashi were around long enough to wear out their barrels. How many rounds fired represent the design life of very large bore naval artillery?
I think it was more the fact they didn't have the high quality steel for the barrel liners more than firing a huge number of shells. Half the time the Yamato didn't have even a half load out of powder for her guns!
I'm glad you mentioned HMS Agincourt. In addition to her seven turrets and fourteen guns she enjoyed the wonderful nickname of the Gin Palace. I'll drink to that.
On several occasions Agincourt fired a full broadside at Jutland and was reported blown up, by crewmen on other ships observing her and the battle. Such was the spectacle of all seven turrets fireing together in quick succession. She would then appear out of her own gunsmoke non the worse for wear. Taking into account the rather 'thrown together' crew on board, what a magnificent effort she made during the battle.
@@sirmalus5153 Yes I read that story too. She was said to be very comfortably fitted out as she had been built for the Ottoman Sultan. So when she was instead requisitioned for the Royal Navy life on board was rather more pleasant than on other battleships. If you're going to sea, you should do it in style😁😁.
@@bahoonies Thus the name Gin Palace, the well appointed interior spaces reminding the Tars of a luxurious drinking establishment. Also, the Turks raised the money to build the Agincourt by getting their civilian population to donate the funds. The Turkish people were so angry when Churchill confiscated her that it helped make up their government's mind to join the Central Powers against England. The Germans replaced the Agincourt by donating the battleship Goeben to the Turks. Churchill later regretted his confiscation order.
My understanding is that she was built for a South American country... Brazil(??) I dont recall exactly which, but it was to be the end-all for the little mini arms race in S America...
@@wheels-n-tires1846 She was originally destined for Brazil, but a warming of relations between Brazil & Argentina, combined with a collapse of the Brazilian rubber boom, led to her being sold to the Ottoman empire before completion. At Jutland, she was the only capital ship in the Grand Fleet not fitted with a Dreyer Fire Control Table.
For the ultimate in turret farm insanity, I need to find and link that French 1890’s idea for a battleship-sized armored cruiser armed solely with guns of roughly 6” caliber. Over 50 of them.
I'm amazed that you didn't mention the ultimate turret farm, HMS Agincourt. It had seven turrets, including both a superfiring pair at the bow, and a triplet at the stern just so it can cram in as many 12-inch guns as possible.
05:30 - Credit where credit is due - The Austro Hungarians and Russians pioneered the triple turret. 07:39 - Vanguard was a utilisation of existing turrets. The Lions were to have had triples...
The Italians actually started with triple turrets on their first dreadnought type battleship Dante Alighieri and succeeding classes. The Russian designs were based on the Italian ones.
@@admiral_franz_von_hipper5436 Well, that's up for debate. The Italian ship was the first to be built with a triple turret, but the Austro-Hungarian battleship was the first to enter service. So, it really just depends on what you consider to be first, the first made, or the first used.
@@horationelson2440 The Austro-Hungarian design was made in response to the Italian triple turrets, so it was the Italian design that caused AH to mount triple turrets on their battleships. The Austrians may have put the first ship with triple turrets out, but it was the Italians who were the first to implement them.
An interesting tidbit: Both Nevada and Pennsylvania (Arizona's sister ship) Made real reputations for themselves for gunnery during WWII. Nevada for her incredible accuracy on D Day especially. Nevada also proved to be obnoxiously difficult to sink, lol.
Nevada was the only all or nothing battleship sunk in anything resembling a gun battle, so I wonder if her resilience can be attributed to the armor layout?
My favorite style of battleship are the good ol' Nelsol and Rodnol. There's an elegance to their function-over-form design and they managed to do quite a lot with many factors working against them.
I love this story of Rodney giving scharnhorst (I think) a good scare when scharnhorst was capturing a merchant ship or it was doing something with a merchant should I forget exactly what, and based off reports Rodney knew this and decided just come charging over the Horizon at top speed and very nearly got into gun range if not actually popped a couple shells off but missed before scharnhorst could GTFO
@@SamwiseOutdoors it may have been Nelson but given all of the amazing stuff that Rodney did it was most likely Rodney. Especially considering the fact that on several occasions Rodney mysteriously exceeded her maximum rated top speed
@@the_undead Rodney was kind of magic in a weird way. She had so many close calls, and saw newer and more modern ships get sunk while pulling through unscathed. What a career.
I think it was Rodney that was doing shore bombardment for the Normandy landings. Someone called in an artillery strike on a shallow part of a river to prevent a German armor column from crossing, so Rodney lobbed a 16" shell on location and again after a while and again for hours. Would you want to cross a location after just seeing 1 ton shell explode there?
Well the Gin Palace definitely has the most turrets, although to me the Fusion/Ise classes are the epitome of turret farms with 6 twins in the larger 14" caliber and a decent 12" armour belt as opposed to Agincourt having battle cruiser amounts of armor only a 9" belt like Queen Mary
Most of the ships sunk at Jutland by magazine explosions were not particularly “turret farms”. Indefatigable was A-Q-P-X layout and was struck in the X turret causing flash down into the magazine. Queen Mary was A-B-Q-X and had a similar mechanism as well and the Lion had a similar incident, but was saved by the turret crew. Invincible may have received a direct hit to the magazine or turret trunk. The main magazines that exploded on each ship were X, Q, and Q respectively. Defence and Black Prince were probably the closest to a “turret farm” and both sank by magazine explosion; they were also armoured cruisers, so they did not have good protection against major caliber shells. On the Germans, the pre-dreadnought battleship Pommern sank by magazine explosion, but it was caused by a torpedo. In terms of turret damage, most of the ships that fought in the battlecruiser action suffered the loss of multiple turrets; battleship Warspite with her A-B-X-Y configuration is one of the well-known examples.
As I read, the problem wasn't that they were full of magazine spaces, it was a problem with charge handling. They didn't close the doors as much as they should. Yeah, they got shots off a few seconds faster, but, well, the result is in the books. And the ships are on the bottom. As it were.
@@davidatkinson47 Yup, their charge handling process was the issue, not the abundance of magazine spaces. They actually just kept the magazine and hoist doors open and stored charges in the turret itself.
I heard it was a consequence of where they were stationed. There were not opportunities to practice accurate firing so they were instead drilled to fire more rapidly. Some compromises of safety protocols occurred to increase the rate of fire a bit more.
I'm a sucker for the two quads forwards arrangement. Even aside from the aggressive pursuit of tonnage efficiency, it gives such wide arcs where all main guns can be brought to bear and I can't help but appreciate the implied elan of a design that can fire all guns in pursuit, even at the cost of not being able to fire any if it's being pursued. I also feel like it gives the most room for modernization for the missile era, as you have the aft deck wide open for such things without compromising the main battery.
It is being restored right now. It is being disassembled. All gun turrets have already been removed and sent for repairs. It will eventually be relocated but still remain in Texas.
My favorite is the 3 main turrets and the 5 inch gun turrets backing up the main turrets. The Iowa class style. Because I was a battleship sailor on the Big J from 1984 - 1990. Enjoyed the vid. I hope we can make the New Jersey BB-62 the most mentioned battleship over the Mighty Mo one day.
Love the term turret farm. As Drachinifel says on his channel on naval history: the American navy loves to cover their ships in guns that way each and every sailor from captain to cook, gets the opportunity to exercise their 2nd ammendment rights. I hope you and he get to team up when he comes to visit the US this year.
I used to think HMS Agincourt was AWESOME because it had so many turrets... after this video, I can see why that scheme wasn't pursued. Thank goodness it never was a serious target at Jutland....
I think turret farms have character but if I had to choose I'd choose the Standard-Type Battleship layout of ABXY triples and if not ABXY duals or ABX triples
With modern technology, the quad turret I feel could offer a lot of options in ship designs. A modern battleship with the same length as New Jersey and group with little wider beam with 2 quad turrets forward would allow you a lot of space aft to install a couple of Ohio class style VLS silos carrying 200-300 tomahawks or more would allow for a lot of fire power to counteract any of the Russo-Chinese ships as well as provide the opportunity for massive shore bombardment for Marine landings if needed. Pair them with a cheaper smaller carrier with 40 plane attack wing and you have a task force that can project excellent power in emergencies when the bigger carriers aren't immediately available. Cheaper over all than a Ford class carrier that isn't even fully operational in a useful manner.
We were going to build them bigger. Even dig a bigger canal for those bigger ones. But, uhh, are you French?
2 года назад
I like turret farms. In fact the IJN Fuso as it is in World of Warships is my favourite ship of that type. It is just fun to effectively shot gun another ship with that broadside :) Interesting Video with some aspects I didnt know.
One reason that European powers liked the twin turret well into the 1930's particularly for cruisers was hydrodynamic efficiency it allowed you to design a ship that needed less power for a given speed that would still fit into a dock of moderate size an important consideration for countries with limited budgets and still having colonial holdings across the world where ships might need to be docked. For the Japanese it would appear that their main consideration was that they would always be outnumbered by the most likely enemies so a desire for a ship theoretically capable of firing on more than one opponent led to the 6 twin gunhouse arrangement they used in their 14 inch battleships it also gave commonality with the Kongo class battlecruisers
I recall at one point Ryan covered a room that had been converted into a weight room in the 80’s, did the New Jersey have any dedicated exercise areas in its original design?
Another excellent presentation. For a future consideration, I would like to hear/see what the large housings stop the tripods on the Pearl Harbor era battleships looked like and how they functioned. I haven't been able to find any information/photographs for reference. Thank you in advance.
I'm not sure about interior, what I do know is that each floor on the American ones represent the different weapons aboard ie; 3 story, highest=aa spotter Mid=Main gun spotter Lowest=secondary....
The 4 3-gun individually firing turrets are what I would prefer. Imagine with the technology we have today what we could design and build??? But we already know there are weapons that would reduce it's survivability to obsolescence before conception ... but to dream ... ..
@@Predator42ID How many Hypersonic missiles or SMART Torpedoes though? There is no unsinkable ship and with the modern weapons platforms today and in the near future putting a 50,000 ton city in the water is problematic at best for cost to benefit alone ... but it would be nice ...
@@Predator42ID A big problem with the battleships is although they'd survive to win a battle they'd still have substantial damage that required them to be returned to drydock to repair. That process can take a long time, potentially longer than the war has left. Better than sinking but not as much as you'd think. Solving that requires a lot more than just making armour thicker and tougher. CIWS helps but not enough. Smaller ships are actually the better solution here. Split the functionality across 5 ships, try to avoid taking any damage, and if 1 gets damage you can drydock just the 1 instead of all 5. Also generally cheaper to have 5 small ships than 1 giant ship.
Awesome work! Personally favour the two forward and one aft design-makes for some really sleek looking battleships, from the Iowa and preceding classes of fast BB's, to the legendary Yamato class, and even for the Ferrari-styled Italian BB's.
I do love the standard type of US battleships. Certainly the best when it comes to shear volume of fire. Three entire classes would use the 12 gun design with the 4 triple turret layout. The Pennsylvania class is one of my favorite out of the bunch, though that's because I like the aesthetics of the tripod mast over the lattice mast. I also love the look the Modernized Tennessee class. A good combination of old and new design.
Having war gamed for a few decades as the IJN in the Pacific Theater (because everyone else wanted to be the "good guys" and be America), I'm a bit biased (in favor) of the Japanese ships. Having both the Yamato class battleships out by mid-1942 actually brings balance to things because the U.S. battleships are tougher (overall) than their Japanese counterparts (if not sunk outright at Pearl Harbor) and it takes the superior firepower of those two behemoths to counter them in surface actions when fleets close for it (which happens surprisingly a lot - most of the battles take place with the carriers leading, but a lot of people will seek out a surface action still, which can lead to decisive engagements). I personally love the Kongo-class battleships (they're fast battleships afterall) because of their ability to screen the slower, older ships and the heavier Yamato-class ones. But as for the turrets, it only matters who hits farthest first (i.e. Yamato 😅) and who does the most damage fastest and I've found the U.S. battleships were very tough and annoying opponents and many of the IJN battleships were forced to withdraw early due to them, but the Yamato-class really did some damage to "Battleship Row" (understandable though too) and in my opinion the Japanese had naval superiority in the Pacific until after the Battle of Midway.
I have a thing for the French quads. Not really competing toe to toe with other battleships, but clearly designed for a specific purpose in mind. It's a shame they came to the end they came to. It would have been awesome if they had been off the beaches of Normandy, helping liberate their country.
I think Ryan said in one video how battleships are very photogenic and I think the 4 triple turret design of the Montana Class would have made for a very impressive weapons platform. As a side note the Montanas would have made for an awesome broadside show with 12 16inch guns shot at once!
I have a feeling that Ryan would have absolutely hated a design I came up with as a kid: 4 - 3-gun turrets (2 fore, 2 aft) mounting 16" or 18" guns, then 4 heavy secondary turrets (dual 12" guns) on the four corners(?) past the actual sides of the ship. This is what happens when a kid starts dreaming but has zero marine engineering knowledge.
You should take a look at an old Italian battleship. It's called the Andrea Doria. It featured a 3-2-3-2-3 setup in 12" guns so it could bring 13 barrels to its sides. When they remodeled it they dropped the center gun so it was like the Nevada with a 3-2-2-3 setup. Another odd arrangement I like is that of the Pensacola and its 2-3-3-2 of 8" guns or the battleship Kearsarge (BB5) mounting 13" guns in 2 dual turrets then throwing a set of 8" dual turrets ontop of those.
Really by WWII only Germany really stuck with the twin turrets. British KGV's went with quad and twin, the Italians went with triples and the French with quads. Vanguard used left over WWI twin turrets so it really doesn't count. The Japanese with their last battleships went with triples also.
real question should be... at a given weight... would you chose 4 twin turrets of a larger caliber? or 4 triple turrets of a smaller caliber? Generally speaking the main naval powers (USA UK and Japan) opted for enlarged caliber except for the King George V which was a very very specific political problem (uk trying to force everybody to sign up for 14' guns as max caliber). on a general rule a ship could fit a triple 14' turret, or a dual 16' turret for give or take same space and weight. 15' would be a middle of the ground in weight distance and general performance between both. Based on historical examples, for WW1 level of accuracy i would choose 4 triple 14', but for WW2 era with improved FCS, Optic / radio rangefinders and last but not least Radar Fire Control, then having a better gun shell would give a decisive advantage since it was expected that both ships in a lasting engagement would hit each other (Bismarck entire voyage its a prime example of Battleship accuracy in WW2). That being said, and with improved armor in mind (several layers of deck armor, angled belt, all-or-nothing layout) i'd take extra speed as a prime advantage, since being able to dictate engagment distance was proved over and over to be a strategic advantage, even for inferior ships (like italian Cavours in Calabria that were able to escape a larger british battleship force, while Royal Navy could only engage the Regia Marina with a fragment of its force because of a mix of QE and Revenge class that leaved the last way behind So i think that Germany picked wisely 8x15' in 4 twin turrets while putting a lot of effort in speed (they did a pretty bad job with deck armor but for the most part it was a nice setup) but more wise were the Italian Littorios, having 15' instead of 16' was wiser, since ballistics were pretty good, and 3x3 at the end of the day only takes 1 barrel while running from but allowing for a better 6 barrels config while chasing
Another subject you could cover is the switch from the casement mounting of the secondary armament as on the Texas and other 'Standard' US battleships and the RN dreadnaughts up to the Queen Elizabeth class, to turret mounted secondary armament as on the New Jersey.
My favorite turret farms are the Ise and Hyuga. 6 twin turrets in 3 superfiring groups. They looked nicely balanced, better than Fuso and Yamashiro. I agree with the American designers. I love the 4-triple ships. Pennsylvania and Arizona after their 1930's refits were gorgeous ships. I built a model of Arizona when I was a kid. Before that I hadn't realized 4-turret ships existed. I thought it made her "better" than the Iowas (give me a break, I was like 12). Too bad the Montanas came too late to be finished.
Hey Ryan, are you guys going to be there when they move the Texas to drydock? It would make some great videos and not to mention I guess some more experience for when New Jersey's time comes to make a move to drydock for servicing.
I agree with four 3-gun turrets being the best and I think the Montana layout which was a return to the 12 gun arrangement would've offered the best of everything.
@@algrayson8965 why not put anti-ship missiles on the battleship too? Oh yes they already did. Lol Technically hypersonic missiles are faster than Jets so really a carrier would be dead meat by the same token as a battleship would be but the carrier has much less armor to protect it. Kind of a dumb argument to say that a missile can hit a ship when they can also hit carriers just as easily meaning that carriers would be just as obsolete as battleships and all everyone will ever own are "anti ship"missiles launched from rowboats.
I feel like saying Germany never willing adopted triple turrets isn’t entirely true. They used triple turrets for the Deutschlands and Sharnworsts which of course were ships bound by politics, but I remember reading that the main reason that Bismarck didn’t have triple turrets was that they couldn’t fit 3 15 guns in the turret. I believe the designs for Bismarck’s 16 inch gunned successors also had triple turrets as well.
7:46 - I'm surprised that no one tried segmenting their turrets, so that a hit that penetrated the turret armor would only knock out one or two of the guns rather than all the guns in the turret.
If your fire control is inaccurate, it doesn't matter how many guns you've got. Edit: For reference: Precision is when your shells land within a short distance of each other, in a tight "group". If your fire control system is inaccurate, it means that the shell group does not overlap with the location of the target, and so pouring more shells into the group will not increase the probability of hitting the target.
@@decentish8546 I... I guess you if we define FCS accuracy as the ability of the FCS to give correct lead and elevation to make a shot group overlap a target, and you define gun accuracy as the ability of the gun to actually put out a shot group that overlaps with where the FCS thinks you should be aiming, then yes, you could indeed score a hit through compounding inaccuracy.
I've always liked ten-gun battleships like the Nevada-class and the Italian treaty battleships... It's mostly an aesthetic preference, and it requires production of two separate turret designs instead of focusing on one, but five guns in either direction is a nice balance between odds-over-dispersion and topside weight/number of guns.
The Tennessee class would be my idea of the best American "classic" design. BUT the slow speed of the standards is something I just can't get over. Also the single rudder.
The Quad turrets on the KGVs was not nearly as bad as people say. In fact the Royal Navy, who had LOTS of experience, actually said they were good and reliable once bugs were worked out. All weapon systems go through that phase, some longer than others (looking at you Gerald R Ford class), and it was just unfortunate the KGV class were commissioned during a war and did not get the shake downs they would have during peace time. Prince of Wales was still working up so it's not fair to describe her as the ship with crap turrets. Also, Royal Navy battles between capital ships were much longer than USN battles, so the missed shots were errors in drill. For the first hour or so, Duke of York and King George V had 96% or better when it came to salvos ordered and actually fired. Drachinifel has a very good video where they talk about the myths around the KGV class. As he said, if North Carolina had commissioned and went right into action against Bismarck, it would not have been fair if she had been remembered as the ship with the crap engines that fishtails all over the place and nearly shakes herself apart, barely able to manage 24 knots, for the rest of her life.
They certainly did great execution against both Bismarck and Scharnhorst. And for all that PoW was still working up at Denmark Strait, she was the most accurate ship there statistically speaking. Although, I think the British at the time would have been happier if she were slightly less accurate, but had all her guns working properly. That could very, very easily have caused a dramatic change in the engagement (then again, the same could be said for Hood shooting at the wrong target)
Ryan's giddy impression of US Navy's glee with the realization of four triple turrets is so American. Lol. As good as the Drachism about equating American WWII anti-aircraft gun numbers to every member of the ship's crew being able to express their 2nd amendment rights and empty deck space means another gun can be added.
A bunch of times you can also hear about a gun jam, having triple guns per turret also helps in that respect. Instead of losing a quarter of your punching power in front or rear aspect engagements, you only lose a sixth
I enjoy watching your channel so much. You are very knowledgeable about battleships. I consider myself very educated when it comes to battleships. However. I'm not anywhere near your level of expertise yet. My first battleship visit was Alabama when I was 9 yrs old. I fell in love with them ever since. I always had a fascination with several of the Tillman class designs. Especially the design that called for 24 16in guns in 4 sextuplet turrents. Or. I know it was never a actually design plan for a German battleship and it's totally fiction. The design scheme for a German battleship with 8 32in guns.
Ryan describing the 12 x 14" guns. My favorite thing this week. I played it for my wife and she said there is another "me" out there and shook her head.. Awesome job as always.
Another significant consideration is how much simpler twin turrets are. You can just take all the hardware for loading a single gun, and mirror-image it to the other side. A triple turret, on the other hand, has to figure out how to squeeze an entire third gun's worth of hardware in the middle. That gets messy. Even more barrels means major design headaches. Britain's one delve into quadruple turrets was a nightmare of engineering problems and reliability problems. The French quads were actually two twin turrets side-by-side that happened to be mounted on the same rotating platform.
Although I love the TEXAS, I still favor the 4x2 arrangement of BISMARCK, HOOD, QUEEN ELIZABETH, TIRPITZ, and WARSPITE. It Looks good and was very useful.
Not sure how that would work with a conning tower and fire control in the way, but, as it is with battleships: go big or go down. (I would love some elaboration, TBH. How did it work in your dream?)
@@davidatkinson47 in my dream, the fire control works by directing fire on the Quad turret and a secondary fire control controls the triple turret. The wiring is parallel, so if one fire control doesn't work, it can still control the pair of superfiring turrets. I think I should've said that the triple turret is superfiring with a quad turret. I mix them up. The fire control systems were located at the front and at the side of the honeycomb superstructure (like the French superstructure), but with a High Performance Fire Control Radar. The forward superstructure is honeycomb while the aft superstructure is trapezoidal in shape
@@rohannbennedicktan7226 Thanks. To be fair, I'm trying to be a writer (and currently failing) but, if my work ever does come to light, you might be able to read something like this in there. Again, thank you. Say if you don't want that (don't worry about getting paid, neither of us will be.)
If you ask me, the Arkansas and Agincourt are simply gorgeous. Id take a gun farm any day of the week, not only is it the best looking, its much easier to turn it into a amazing fireworks display!
Scharnhorst battleships had triple gun turrets, so did the Graf Spee class pocket battleships. I know the Scharnhorst was planned to have 15" guns installed but the war canceled that.
I’m partial to the turret layout on Nelson and Rodney. Of the three 1920s battleship classes Nelson and Rodney have the most effective armor scheme, the heaviest broadside and the median speed.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 from wiki. " In calm weather, the Nelson-class ships were very manoeuvreable, but the large surface area of the superstructure gave them a large amount of weather helm and they could be a handful in confined spaces with a strong wind as was demonstrated when Nelson ran aground off Southsea beach in 1934."
@@Frankon81 Well, if asked whose opinion to believe, that of Admiral of the Fleet the Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, or that of wikipedia, forgive me for preferring the former.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 when going full power on the calm see nelson handled super well. The problem was when she was going low speed in bad weather. Her hull was basically working as a large sail.
There was a thought that the extra turrets were needed due to the fear that a fewer number of turrets meant less barrels down range if a turret was knocked out. As for Jutland the Battlecruisers were destroyed because of poor ammunition handling along with the weaker design of the armor. If it was just turrets in and of themselves and not the weaker armor of the battlecruiser design then the British would have more than likely lost a couple of true battleships as well. It is unlikely that they would have lost, or at least three would have been lost, if the proper procedures were followed. But having more turrets does lead to greater risk of magazine explosion.
The greatest turret farm afloat, the HMS Agincourt, 7 main gun turrets. It had to be something to watch that ship at Jutland cutting loose. The biggest turret farms in the US, the Wyoming and Arkansas, six main gun turrets.
Another problem that the center turret battleships had was that the boilers were forward of the center turret while the engines were aft of that turret, The result was routing the steam lines around the central magazine which cause continuing problems with temperature control in the powder rooms
3:15 ...underwater-archeologists found the reason, why 3 british battlecruisers blew up at the battle of Jutland/Skagarak... ...HMS Queen-Mary, Indefatigable and Invincible sunk from dangerous neglect of safety-regulations...! ...to increase the rate of fire, the crews fixed the blast-doors of the ammo-handling-rooms in the open-position... 😨 ...the magazines caught fire... ...and the rest is history...! 😞 8:03 ...USS Texas: "...6 turrets! I'm a turret-farm...!" ...HMS Agincourt: "...hold my beer...!" 😁
